The US Supreme Court

[Svartalf]

The Supreme Court can kiss my ass, they have authority by force alone, the worst kind of authority—bleh.

meaning that if it should come to that, it's much more likely they'll make you kiss THEIR bum rather than brownnose to you.

[Svartalf]

it's not so much he's married to a man than his love of stuffing it to people up where the sun doesn't shine.

[Sean Hayden]

Supreme Court Increasingly Favors the Rich, Economists Say

A new study found that the court’s Republican appointees voted for the wealthier side in cases 70 percent of the time in 2022, up from 45 percent in 1953.

Supreme Court justices take two oaths. The first, required of all federal officials, is a promise to support the Constitution. The second, a judicial oath, is more specific. It requires them, among other things, to “do equal right to the poor and to the rich.”

A new study being released on Monday from economists at Yale and Columbia contends that the Supreme Court has in recent decades fallen short of that vow.

The study, called “Ruling for the Rich,” concludes that the wealthy have the wind at their backs before the justices and that a good way to guess the outcome of a case is to follow the money.

The study adds to what Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent in June, called “the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens.”

…continued https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/05/us/p ... -poor.html

[Brian Peacock]

Ah, but you have to factor in that richer people are just better, and moreso.

[L'Emmerdeur]

This reminded me of somebody who posts here sometimes:

... strategy of obfuscation through trolling, distraction theatrics, outright lies and, when all else fails, simply refusing to engage at all.

I suppose belittling the source to avoid dealing with the argument would fall under 'distraction theatrics'. Marcotte, the author of the piece below, describes this strategy as an inherent component of MAGA's approach to politics. True enough but what is behind that approach? The knowledge, even if they're unable to acknowledge it, that their position is often not only illogical but counterproductive and harmful.

'John Roberts embodies MAGA cowardice'

One would think, in order to rise to the level of a Supreme Court justice, it would behoove a person to be fond of a rigorous debate. Not so with John Roberts, who is no less than the Grand Poobah of the berobed arbiters of constitutionality. A devastating recent report from the New York Times has exposed how the chief justice led the way to the escalating abuse of the shadow docket, a Court power once reserved for emergencies but that is now the primary tool of the institution’s conservative justices to evade having to debate or even explain their decisions in a lengthy and reasoned ruling available for all to examine. While this revelation is just the latest in a series of scandals involving the Court, it ties into a larger pattern that has animated and defined the MAGA movement from its very beginning: a cowardly aversion to robustly debating ideas.

The term “shadow docket” itself sounds like wonky legalese, but in practice it’s quite simple. The Court has the power, which has traditionally been reserved for emergency situations, to issue temporary orders while the case itself awaits final judgment. As the Brennan Center for Justice explains, these “typically involve requests that the Court temporarily lift lower court orders” and “usually involve limited briefing, no oral argument, and rulings with little or no analysis of the Court’s reasoning.” The granting of shadow docket requests were once exceedingly rare and granted only for cases under an imminent deadline, such an inmate on death row needing a stay of execution to give his lawyers time to finish an appeal.

But with Donald Trump in office, the conservative Court is using the shadow docket as a back door to issue rulings upholding the administration’s unpopular — and often legally questionable — policies, while having to avoid explaining themselves to the public. Times reporters Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak have pinpointed a winter night in 2016 as the turning point, when the justices “issued a cryptic, one paragraph ruling” on Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Since then, according to their count, the Court has sided with the Trump administration in over 20 cases without “the kind of rigorous debate that the justices devote to their normal cases.” Most of these followed a Trump loss in the lower courts — and came with considered judicial opinions that were published. But the Supreme Court effectively took those carefully reasoned and evidence-heavy decisions and threw them in the trash with no explanation.

Since shadow docket rulings are unsigned, we can’t know for certain the usual tally of supporting and opposing justices. Still, it’s a safe bet, based on judicial philosophies, past rulings and inclinations — not to mention the evidence compiled by Kantor and Liptak — that the Court’s conservative justices have been the drivers of these decisions.

There are many theories swirling around for why they have increasingly chosen to abandon their basic duty to legal transparency. And the likeliest one is also the simplest: They’re cowards.

[Etc.]

[Tero]

Once more the court decides there IS mo racism

https://apnews.com/live/voting-rights-a ... 04-29-2026

[Tero]

No more racism. And never another Obama.

[L'Emmerdeur]

As I've mentioned before, Chief Justice Roberts has made it a personal project going back decades to destroy the Voting Rights Act. With this ruling he and his fellow right-wing Nazgul (hat tip to Svartalf) have succeeded. MAGA isn't going to sleep on this one.

'Republicans Start Power Grab After SCOTUS Guts Civil Rights'

Republicans didn’t hesitate to capitalize after the Supreme Court opened the door to exploit additional GOP House seats nationwide.

Within hours of the Supreme Court’s controversial ruling on Wednesday that nullified a landmark Civil Rights-era law restricting racial gerrymandering and racial discrimination in voting, GOP Sen. Marsha Blackburn pounced on the opportunity to try to eliminate the only remaining Democratic district in her state of Tennessee.

...

Florida’s MAGA Gov. Ron DeSantis had already planned for the court’s ruling with a prepared congressional map that would add four more Republican seats to the state. The state’s legislature passed the measure hours after Wednesday’s ruling.

...

The ruling, which centered on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—one of the only remaining provisions that had not yet been stripped by the Supreme Court—included a fierce dissent from its liberal minority, with Justice Elena Kagan describing it as the “latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition” of the Act.

[Tero]

AI summary:
Endorsing Partisan Gerrymandering (Rucho v. Common Cause, 2019): The Court ruled that federal courts cannot block partisan gerrymandering, holding that it is a "political question" beyond their jurisdiction.
Prioritizing State Districting Power (Louisiana v. Callais, 2026): The Supreme Court weakened Section 2 further by enabling the restriction of "majority-minority" districts, prioritizing "nonracial goals" like political, partisan aims over the creation of districts meant to empower minority voters

The Supreme Court has primarily used the principles of federalism and state sovereignty as the constitutional basis for narrowing the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The justices have argued that while the 14th and 15th Amendments grant Congress power to prevent racial discrimination, that power is limited by the "equal sovereignty" of the states and the specific constitutional authority granted to states to manage their own elections.
Brennan Center for Justice
Brennan Center for Justice
+3
Key Constitutional Rationales and Provisions:
Principle of Equal Sovereignty (Shelby County v. Holder, 2013): The Court ruled that Section 4 of the VRA was unconstitutional because it treated states differently based on "decades-old data". Chief Justice Roberts argued that the Constitution requires the federal government to respect the "equal sovereignty" of states, and that the VRA’s preclearance formula was an "extraordinary departure" from this principle that was no longer justified by current conditions.

[Tero]

More:
Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment): In the most recent major ruling on April 29, 2026, (Louisiana v. Callais), the Court used the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to strike down a majority-Black congressional district. The majority argued that using race as the predominant factor in redistricting—even when intended to comply with the VRA—can constitute an unconstitutional "racial gerrymander".

[Tero]

Democrats plan to pass legislation to bring back voting rights. But with this court they are going to insist that feds have no powers through any amendments to protect voters. It is strictly a state job.

[Svartalf]

Once more the court decides there IS mo racism

https://apnews.com/live/voting-rights-a ... 04-29-2026

so basically, the Repugnant side betrays their founders AGAIN, and makes it harder to vote for darker skinned citizens? am I correct?

[L'Emmerdeur]

Once more the court decides there IS mo racism

https://apnews.com/live/voting-rights-a ... 04-29-2026

so basically, the Repugnant side betrays their founders AGAIN, and makes it harder to vote for darker skinned citizens? am I correct?

While the Republicans are working on making it harder for minorities, and poor people generally, to vote via legislation (SAVE Act) this Supreme Court decision isn't about that. The decision makes it possible to gerrymander voting districts to dilute the power of minorities to elect people who will actually represent their interests in government.

In this specific instance (and somewhat simplified): Louisiana's population is approximately 1/3 black. It has six congressional districts but only one of those districts is majority black. The map was redrawn to create two majority black districts to reflect the population and the case was about whether that is allowable. Given that the Voting Rights Act was created to counteract racist policies in elections it would seem so, but Republicans have argued that measures taken to counteract racist policies are themselves racist.

There's a recent decision in another case about gerrymandering which touches on some of these issues. I think it's tiresome to anybody who isn't interested in the ridiculous and Byzantine American voting system, but also exemplifies the blatantly political nature of these decisions.

'The Gerrymandering Wars Are Just Beginning'

[Brian Peacock]

tl;dr? Being anti-racist is racism against racists.

[JimC]

Gerrymandering makes a complete farce of the idea of representative democracy. Independent electoral commissions FTW...